M1 Apple Silicon

OK gentlemen (@Marty and @desertlap) - if this theory is correct, and you are FAR MORE QUALIFIED than this simpleton to opine on this, why are the Android versions of almost EVERYTHING always a shadow of, or inferior to, the iOS version? My point is the "ARM" superiority everyone is touting is not ARM, but Apple silicon + iOS. I have yet to use a single piece of software on an Android device that was equal or superior to the iOS version; at the same time there is nice software on iOS that NEVER shows up on an ARM device...

So why does everyone think WOA is going to be equal to or better than iOS? So if all MS can hope to do is equal Android, why bother? Witness how MS 365 and OneNote on Android, even with MS investment in the Duo, are still inferior to the iOS versions...

 

Check out Gravity Sketch. It currently runs on Qualcomm ARM pretty well. There is no iOS VR version. VR is only on PC/Mac VR and OculusQuest. An iPad 2D version is currently Beta.

 

Well, at least there is one...

 

Lol

CSP is superior on Samsung Android than iPadOS since its same but with added S-pen air jestures integration.

 

I still stick by my opinion (well 99.9% anyway) - software is RARELY equal to or better on Android...but my point is unchallenged - this is not a "superiority of ARM" but a "superiority of Apple silicon and iOS."

 

Make no mistake, no one is saying ARM is an "equal opportunity platform". MS is fighting goliath. But a similar question could have been posed when Apple switched from PowerPC to x86:

Microsoft already had a nearly unchallengeable lead on Intel, why even bother switching?

The answer is to stay relevant. When you're bleeding developers, you either adapt or die. As I wrote about in my spiel about posterity , if you stay alive and persistent, the underdog can flip the tables as Apple did with the M1.

 

I might start to sound like a broken record, but people are putting too much into Apple's current success with ARM. It is very impressive no doubt, but as with everything they do, it's expert use of opportunity and their unique position of being vertically integrated. MS obviously does not have this level of integration of hardware and software on purpose of keeping their hardware partners happy as possible since Windows services so many hardware variants and ODMs.

Desktop performance out of ARM is not voodoo magic only privy to Apple. It's matter of wanting to spend the capital to achieve it (smaller nodes, bigger die, cache, transistor count etc, more R and D). Now IMO most see the benefit of going after such performance with the platform so we will start to see more of such processors to compete with Apple Silicon. A tight integration of OS and hardware such as Apple's case is nice, but not necessary to see similar level of performance from other upcoming ARM SoC.

 

Well sure, but they also made sure that their only recent ARM device is super expensive, doesn't offer much extra battery life while not being more portable, and has moderate performance, which together [10] basically guarantees a very small market share, thereby ensuring that it's not worth it for developers jumping on board, meaning software won't work well, meaning [GOTO 10].

There are definitely markets where WOA is not going to be an option for a LONG time, but in the very least they could have attempted to make a device that is attractive to a large fraction of the market by pricing it competitively.

I hope you're right!

 

I'm definitely not a fan of shoehorning a phone SoC into a laptop, and that's all QC did for MS with SQ1 and 2. You can't get enough emu performance that way, and you are also stuck paying for thing not necessary for a laptop that a top end phone processor has and thus demands high BOM without benefits to the device. That's why SPX is more expensive than the SP7. I'm betting SQ1/2 is costing more to BOM than ULV Core i5/7. Also, any efficiency of the ARM architecture is negated by overclocking the SoC to squeeze more performance than it's designed for. It's lose/lose/lose...

 

Now that would explain a lot! Do we actually know the SQ1 cost? If I am to believe random posts on the internet, high end smartphone SoC's are less than $50. If true, it should have been no problem to produce an affordable Surface Go on ARM with the best Qualcomm SoC.

Whatever they do, it better be an appealing value proposition next to a... $1000 13" Macbook Air with M1, 8GB/256GB, and Thunderbolt.

Right now, MS wants $1300 for the 13" Pro X with SQ1, 8GB/256GB, and USB-C. Ouch!